Cagle Post: If the government can’t ban speech, can it compel it?

Our latest op-ed on Cagle Post today:

In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the government may determine whose speech is worthy of protection under the First Amendment. As a result of the decision, individuals, small businesses, corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations may all engage in political speech. It is not the bailiwick of government bureaucrats to judge and determine who should be allowed to speak. As Chief Justice John Roberts has remarked: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.” Citizens United appropriately limited the government’s ability to regulate and prohibit speech.

Another case that questions the ability of the government to regulate speech is currently before the Supreme Court: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. This case deals with Arizona’s “clean elections” campaign financing system.

There have been many attempts to create systems where the government subsidizes campaigns. Most label these systems “public financing,” but in reality they are anything but. The truest form of “public financing” is a system in which citizens can voluntarily contribute to those candidates which they support. Each and every government subsidized system undermines the sovereignty of the American people.

Read the full op-ed here